Systems and methods for feeding sugar alcohol to ruminants during periods of heat stress

ABSTRACT

Systems and methods provide sugar alcohol to heat stressed ruminants to improve performance. During periods of high temperature or humidity, heat stressed ruminants may exhibit decreased dry matter intake, and in response, an effective amount of sugar alcohol such as sorbitol may be provided in the ruminant diet to cause performance to increase, which may include increased milk yield, improved feed efficiency or both compared to heat stressed dairy cattle without sugar alcohol in the diet.

CROSS-REFERENCED RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.14/158,209 filed Jan. 17, 2014, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,044,041 onJun. 2, 2015, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser.No. 13/363,973 filed on Feb. 1, 2012, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,658,199on Feb. 25, 2014, the entire contents of all are incorporated herein byreference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

Implementations provide systems and methods for feeding sugar alcohol toruminants during periods of heat stress to increase performance of theheat stressed ruminant.

BACKGROUND

Heat stress can reduce intake and milk production in lactating dairycattle. During periods of excessive heat, when environmentaltemperatures and humidity are high, cooling systems such as combinationsof fans, sprinklers, curtains, and natural ventilation systems may beused to cool the ambient air environment and the dairy cattle within theenvironment or may be used to directly cool the dairy cattle throughevaporation of liquid from the skin surface. However, water supplies forcooling the air or for cooling the dairy cattle may be unavailable, andwhen available, sprinkler systems may drift or may provide inadequateamounts of water for sufficient cooling. Fans may be incorrectly placedfor cooling, may fail and require maintenance and the amount of fancooling may be limited by electrical capacities.

In some cases, heat stressed dairy cattle may be provided more access todrinking water, may be moved to shaded sides of a barn throughout theday or may be penned in small groups or separately penned in order toreduce the effects of heat stress. However, undersized water supplylines may limit access to water, and availability of stalls may belimited, which may prevent the dairy cattle from being moved to shadedareas or to separate or small group pens.

Even with cooling systems, supplemental water, shade or modified penarrangements, in humid conditions, dairy cattle performance may benegatively impacted and intake and milk production may not reach levelsobserved during cool, less humid conditions.

SUMMARY

Implementations are directed to systems and methods for feeding sugaralcohol such as sorbitol to ruminants experiencing heat stress or thatmay become heat stressed, for example, due to high temperatures,humidity, dew points or combinations thereof. Sugar alcohol provided toa ruminant such as a dairy cow during various phases of lactation mayimprove performance through increased milk yield, improved feedefficiency or both compared to heat stressed ruminant without sorbitolin the diet.

In one implementation, a method of improving ruminant performance duringheat stress includes determining a ruminant is experiencing heat stressand feeding the heat stressed ruminant an effective amount of sugaralcohol to improve performance.

In another implementation, a method of feeding lactating dairy cattlesugar alcohol for improving performance during periods of heat stressincludes feeding the lactating dairy cattle sugar alcohol in an amountof about 100 grams of sugar alcohol per dairy cattle per day to causethe lactating dairy cattle to increase performance during periods ofheat stress.

In another implementation, a feeding system includes a dairy cattle feedmixture comprising sugar alcohol, wherein the dairy cattle feed mixtureis provided to a heat stressed dairy cattle in an amount that deliversabout 100 grams of sugar alcohol to the heat stressed dairy cattle perday.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a bar chart showing the daily milk, energy corrected milk(ECM) and fat corrected milk (FCM) for the four treatment groups studiedfor the effect of feeding sorbitol to heat stressed lactating dairycattle.

FIG. 2 is a bar chart showing the daily dry matter intake in kilogramsper day for each of the four treatment groups studied.

FIG. 3 is a chart showing milk-to-feed ratio for each of the fourtreatment groups studied.

FIG. 4 provides a graph illustrating beta hydroxy butyrate (BHBA) levelsfor the four treatment groups studied during the transition phase.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Systems and methods provide a sugar alcohols such as sorbitol in theruminant diet to improve ruminant performance. Improved performance mayinclude improved dry matter intake, milk production (e.g., milk yieldand/or milk component yield) or both, during periods of heat stress. Theimproved performance may be observed during various stages of lactationincluding transition, mid-lactation and post-peak phases. By consumingsugar alcohols such as sorbitol during periods heat stress, it has beendiscovered that the ruminants may have greater milk yield or improvedfeed efficiency compared to heat stressed ruminants not consuming asugar alcohol. Enhancing milk yield may mean the overall milk yield ormilk component yield is enhanced. Such milk components may include butare not limited to enhanced fat content, true protein, lactose and totalsolids.

According to certain implementations, one or more sugar alcohols may beprovided in the ruminants diet in liquid application, may be applied tothe feed ration, may be fed, blended or pelleted with grainconcentrates, may be provided as extruded pellets, in dry powdered form,as by-product feeds, may be added to the feed ration, and may beprovided in combinations and variations thereof.

Sugar alcohols that may be used to improve the performance of heatstressed ruminants may include, but are not limited to, sorbitol;xylitol; glycerol; adonitol; allitol; altritol; arabitol; dulcitol;erythritol; galaxitol; glucitol; iditol; insitol; isomalt; lactiol;malitol; mannitol; perseitol; ribitol; rhamnitol; threitol, D-isomers,L-isomers, and D- and L-isomers thereof. In addition, one or more of theabove sugar alcohols may be excluded from the ruminant's diet.

In some implementations, an effective amount of sugar alcohol may beingested by the ruminant per day. For example, an effective amount ofsugar alcohol may be about 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110 gramsper day, most preferably at about 100 grams per day, or may be providedfrom about 50 to about 100 grams per day, from about 50 to about 150grams per day, from about 75 to about 125 grams per day, and from about80 to about 100 grams per day. The effective amounts of sugar alcoholmay, for example, be delivered to the ruminant in a dry pellet form andingested orally. In a preferred implementation, sorbitol may be providedat about 100 grams per ruminant per day in a dry pellet form.

Along with the sugar alcohol, the diet fed to the ruminant may includeother ruminant feed components capable of being blended, mixed orincorporated with sugar alcohol. Generally, the feed components shouldnot degrade the sugar alcohol or decrease the sugar alcohol'seffectiveness (e.g., the feed components should not counteract theeffects of sugar alcohol). Some feed components that may be incorporatedwith sugar alcohol in the ruminant may include water, corn silage,legume silages, alfalfa hay, mixed hays (e.g., legumes and grasses)grains (e.g., soybeans, corn, milo), grain mixtures, grain meals,formula feeds, and nutritional supplements (e.g., fatty acids andvitamins). In some implementations, the total diet should be formulatedfor the stage of lactation and may be approximately 40 to 55 percentconcentrates with the remainder being forages (e.g., silages and hays).

According to certain implementations of use, sugar alcohol in the dietmay be provided to the ruminant during all or a portion of the year inwhich the ruminant is challenged by environmental heat stress (e.g.,based on historical weather patterns) to improve ruminant performance.Sugar alcohol may also be provided intermittently during the year inanticipation of periods of heat stress (e.g., based on short-term orlong-term weather forecasts). In another implementation, the sugaralcohol in the ruminant diet may be fed to the ruminant only duringperiods of observed heat stress in the ruminant. Heat stress may beobserved in the ruminant by one or more of increased respiration ratesfrom about 29 cycles per minute, standing, or about 35 cycles perminute, recumbent, decreased performance (e.g., decreased milk yield),decreased dry matter or feed intakes (e.g., a reduction of approximately10 percent), elevated internal body temperature, open mouth breathing,excessive panting, sweating, and failed reproduction.

In addition to feeding sugar alcohol to the ruminant, the environment inwhich the ruminant resides may be cooled to improve ruminantperformance. In the environmental cooling method, the facility may benaturally ventilated using curtain sidewalls, which may bethermostatically controlled to be lowered at approximately 55 degrees F.The facility may be open at the center of the roof to allow warm air toescape. A series of fans may be placed over the stalls and one group maythermostatically activate at one temperature, e.g., 60 degrees F., whileanother group may thermostatically activate at a different temperature,e.g., 66 degrees F. Thus, the curtain sidewalls and groups of fans mayoperate continuously when the ambient temperature is greater than forexample 66 degrees F.

In another implementation for improving ruminant performance, ruminantsmay be fed sugar alcohol and may be cooled directly by evaporativecooling methods. For example, water may be applied in a limited amountto the ruminant's body (e.g., on the back) and natural ventilation andfans may be used to evaporate the water from the hide. The evaporativecooling method may improve the ability of the ruminant to dissipateinternal heat. The water delivery system may include a sprinkler nozzlesystem (e.g., low-pressure sprinklers) for spraying water onto thebodies of the ruminant. The evaporative cooling method may be used whenthe ambient temperature is at a first threshold, e.g., greater than 72degrees F., and the water delivery system may operate intermittently,e.g., for 30 seconds in 7 minute intervals. When the ambient temperatureis at a second threshold, e.g., greater than 86 degrees F., the waterdelivery system may operate longer at more frequent intervals, for 42seconds in 5.5 minute intervals. In some implementations, theevaporative cooling method may be used in combination with theabove-described environmental cooling method.

Heat stressed ruminants consuming sugar alcohol in the diet may improvemilk yield and milk component yield, such as by approximately 8-10percent compared with heat stressed cows not consuming sugar alcohol. Inaddition, ruminants fed sugar alcohol may be more efficient in theconversion of nutrients for the production of milk.

In some implementations, the amount of sugar alcohol provided to theruminant, the type of sugar alcohol provided to the ruminant, or both,may change based on lactation phase. For example, in a transition phase,the ruminant may be provided a first amount of sugar alcohol prior tocalving and may be provided a second amount of sugar alcohol, differentfrom the first amount, after calving.

In a particular example, a heat stressed ruminant in a transition phasemay be provided with 150 grams of sugar alcohol per day, at post-calvingmay receive 125 grams of sugar alcohol per day and thereafter mayreceive 100 grams of sugar alcohol per day. The 125 gram amount may beprovided post-calving for example from days 1 to 14, days 1 to 100, days14 to 100, days 1 to 200, days 14 to 200 or days 100 to 200post-calving. The 100 gram amount may be provided to the heat stressedruminant during lactation for example from days 14 to 100, days 14 to200, days 14 to 305, days 100 to 200, days 100 to 305 or days 200 to305.

In another example, the ruminant may be provided different amounts ortypes of sugar alcohol as the ruminant transitions from the earlylactation phase (e.g., days 14 to 100) to the mid-lactation phase (e.g.,days 100 to 200), from the mid-lactation phase to the late lactationphase (e.g., days 200 to 305), or both.

In some implementations, the ruminant may be provided the same orvarying amounts of one or more sugar alcohols but the type ofimprovement in performance during periods of heat stress may change overtime. For example, providing a sugar alcohol to a ruminant in atransition phase may improve milk yield, while providing the sugaralcohol to the ruminant upon reaching mid-lactation may improve drymatter intake.

Adding sugar alcohol to the diets of heat stressed ruminant may causethe metabolism to spare glucose for the mammary gland, may alter livermetabolism to increase glucose, may act as an alternative of glucose forperipheral tissues metabolism, may affect endocrine control ofmetabolism to spare glucose, or combinations thereof.

Implementations may be applicable to a number of ruminants includingdairy cattle and other even-toed hoofed animals having a three- orfour-chamber stomach. Ruminants may be animals that re-chew stomachcontents. Such ruminants include but are not limited to alpacas;antelopes; bison; camels; deer; giraffes; goats; guanicos; llamas; muskoxen; oxen; and sheep.

These and other advantages may be appreciated in the following Examples,which are intended to be illustrative, and numerous modifications andvariations may be implemented in view of the present disclosure, whichmay be apparent to those skilled in the art.

In the Examples below, statistical analysis was completed for parametersstudied such as milk yield, energy corrected milk (ECM), fat correctedmilk (FCM), and dry matter intake. A P value of 0.10 means that 10 timesout of 100 the results can be explained by factors other than thefeeding of sorbitol versus the lack of sorbitol feeding. Likewise, a Pvalue of 0.75 means that 75 times out of 100, the difference in valuebetween the control group and the sorbitol-fed group may be explained byfactors other than the feeding of the increased rate(s) of supplementalfeed versus the lower rate of feeding of the supplemental feed (e.g., 4pounds per head per day). For purposes of comparing data in thisdocument, P values of 0.15, or lower, are considered statisticallysignificant. Thus, where a P value of 0.15 or less is returned forparticular results, it is assumed that the differing results may beexplained by the test regimen, i.e.: the feeding of the increasedrate(s) of supplemental feed versus the lower rate of feeding of thesupplemental feed (e.g., 4 pounds per head per day).

Example 1

This example demonstrates the effect of feeding heat stressed lactatingdairy cattle in a post-peak phase of lactation about 100 grams ofsorbitol per day, with and without an evaporative cooling system. Inthis example, 32 multiparous cows were blocked by production and days inmilk into one of two diets, a control diet without sorbitol and a dietwith sorbitol, and each treatment group was divided into two coolingtreatments. The four treatment groups included 1) a control diet withfans and no mist; 2) a sorbitol-supplemented diet with fans and no mist;3) a control diet with fans and mist; and 4) a sorbitol-supplementeddiet with fans and mist. During the study, the ambient temperature wasbetween 70 degrees and 85 degrees during 51 percent of study and wasgreater than 85 degrees during 13 percent of the study. Heat stress inthe dairy cattle was observed through changes in performance as well asincreased respiration rates. Dairy cattle performance and respirationrates for the dairy cattle not receiving mister cooling is compared todairy cattle receiving mist treatment in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Misters No Misters P-value Daily Milk, kg/d 39.7 38.9 ns ECM,kg/d 37.4 35.3 0.02 FCM, kg/d 36.6 34.7 0.05 DMI, kg/d 26.1 25.0 ns Fat,% 3.11 3.01 ns Fat, kg/d 1.20 1.13 0.05 Protein, % 2.94 2.87 0.06Protein, kg/d 1.16 1.08 0.05 Milk to Feed 1.56 1.57 ns Respiration rates60.08 65.7 0.08

The sorbitol in the sorbitol-supplemented diets was processed as anextruded pellet and added to other grain concentrates prior to finaladdition and delivery to the ruminant.

The components of the control ration and the sorbitol ration are shownin Table 2:

TABLE 2 Ingredients: pounds of DM Control Sorbitol Corn Silage 16.5 16.5Alfalfa Hay (48.5% Forage DM) 9.0 9.0 Base Grain Mix 17.17 17.17 ControlMix 9.83 0 Sorbitol Treatment Mix 0 9.83 Total 52.5 52.5

The nutrient analysis of the total mixed ration are shown in Table 3:

TABLE 3 Control Sorbitol CP, % 17.4 17.7 ADF, % 18.7 18.7 NDF, % 28.428.8 Fat, % 4.5 4.5 Starch, % 22.4 21.5 Forage NDF, % 19.6 19.6 MP, %11.6 11.7 ME, Mcal/lb 1.32 1.32

The effects of feeding sorbitol to heat stressed dairy cattle is shownin Table 4:

TABLE 4 Control Sorbitol P-value Daily Milk, kg/d 39.2 39.4 ns ECM, kg/d35.4 37.2 0.05 FCM, kg/d 34.5 36.8 0.02 DMI, kg/d 26.4 24.7 0.07 Fat, %2.96 3.16 ns Fat, kg/d 1.11 1.23 0.03 Protein, % 2.93 2.87 0.09 Protein,kg/d 1.12 1.12 ns Milk to Feed 1.48 1.60 0.01 Respiration rates 62.863.0 ns Control and Sorbitol were pooled across cooling strategies andday

The results of Table 4 illustrate that feeding sorbitol to heat stresseddairy cattle positively affects milk yield and milk component yield,reduces dry matter intake, and improves milk-to-feed ratios, describedfurther below.

FIG. 1 shows a bar chart of the daily milk, energy corrected milk (ECM)and fat corrected milk (FCM) for the four treatment groups in the study.In each group receiving sorbitol, dairy cattle performance was improvedover the performance of the control groups. Daily milk yield, FCM andECM was lowest for the control group without misters and withoutsorbitol in the diet, as expected. Dairy cattle receiving sorbitol andmister treatment had the best overall performance in comparison to allother groups studied, and the group with sorbitol and without mistertreatment performed better than the control group without misters in allperformance areas. ECM and FCM yield improved for both the sorbitolgroups compared to their counterpart control groups.

With respect to daily milk yield results, the control group with mistershaving the highest milk yield may be due to increased dry matter intake.This may be evidenced by the sorbitol and mister group havingcomparatively higher ECM and FCM performance.

With respect to the ECM results, heat stressed dairy cattle receivingsorbitol without mister treatment performed significantly better thanthe control group without sorbitol and mister treatment. In addition,the sorbitol group without mister treatment performed similarly to thecontrol group with misters, with 0.3 kg/d difference in ECM. Thus, heatstressed dairy cattle receiving sorbitol may perform substantiallyequally compared to heat stressed dairy cattle undergoing evaporativecooling methods such as misters.

With respect to the FCM results, heat stressed dairy cattle receivingsorbitol with and without mister treatment performed better than thecontrol group with mister treatment and significantly better than thecontrol group without mister treatment.

FIG. 2 shows a bar chart of the daily dry matter intake in kilograms perday for each of four treatment groups studied. The dry matter intake wasgreatest at 28 kg/day for the control group with mister treatmentcompared to 25 kg/day for the other groups. Dry matter intake for thetwo sorbitol groups varied by 0.4 kg/d. As a result of the differencesin the dry matter intake for the control group with mister treatmentcompared to the sorbitol groups, the milk-to-feed ratio was highest forthe sorbitol groups, e.g., feed efficiency was highest for the sorbitolgroups. Particularly as shown in the graph of FIG. 3, for every kg ofdry matter consumed for the control group with misters, 1.44 kg of milkwas produced, whereas the sorbitol group without mister treatmentproduced 1.55 kg of milk for every kg of dry matter consumed, and thesorbitol group with mister treatment produced 1.64 kg of milk for everykg of dry matter consumed. With respect to the control group withoutmisters, the milk-to-feed ratio was 1.52, thus indicating that theperformance of the sorbitol groups without and with mister treatment wasimproved at 1.55 and 1.64, respectively. Accordingly, adding sorbitol tothe diets of lactating dairy cattle during periods of heat stress whendry matter intake is reduced improves performance including milk yield,milk component yield and feed efficiency.

Example 2

This example demonstrates the effects of feeding 64 heat stressedtransition dairy cattle (e.g., in a prefresh stage and a postfresh stageup to 60 days after calving) receiving about 150 grams of sorbitol perday prior to calving and about 125 grams of sorbitol per day, with andwithout an evaporative cooling system. In this example, the dairy cattlewere blocked in the same manner as Example 1. During the study, theambient temperature was between 70 degrees and 85 degrees during 62percent of study and was greater than 85 degrees during 18 percent ofthe study. Heat stress was observed in the dairy cattle in a mannersimilar to Example 1.

Table 5A illustrates the different treatment groups and dietarycomponents of the diets of the treatment groups.

TABLE 5A Prefresh Postfresh N = 60 days 28 to 0 Days 0 to 30 Days 31 to60 Control No Misters Control Control High Sorbitol No Misters 1.5 1b/d1.25 lb/d High base mix base mix Control Misters Control Control HighSorbitol Misters 1.5 lb/d 1.25 lb/d High base mix base mix

The control and sorbitol diets for the prefresh and postfresh cows werecomposed of substantially the feed components provided in Table 5B.

TABLE 5B Prefresh Prefresh Postfresh Postfresh Ingredients: pounds of DMControl Sorbitol Control Sorbitol Corn Silage 11.0 11.0 18.0 18.0 GrassHay 4.5 4.5 Alfalfa Hay 8.5 8.5 Base Grain Mix 10.17 10.17 16 16 HighOrg 7.75 7.75 Control Mix 1.5 1.25 Sorbitol Treatment Mix 1.5 1.25 Total27.17 27.17 51.5 51.5

After 30 days in milk, all postfresh cows were fed a common diet until60 days post partum. The nutrient analysis of the total mixed rationsfor the control and sorbitol diets provided during the study are shownin Table 5C:

TABLE 5C Prefresh Prefresh Postfresh Postfresh Control Sorbitol ControlSorbitol CP, % 15.1 15.1 16.8 16.8 ADF, % 25.4 24.7 19.7 19.5 NDF, %39.7 39.1 31.2 30.9 Fat, % 2.7 2.7 5.0 5.0 Starch, % 23.5 24.7 26.2 26.7Forage NDF, % 26.4 26.4 20.9 20.9 MP, % 10.6 10.7 11.9 11.9 ME, Mcal/lb1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3

As provided in FIGS. 5A and 5B, sorbitol was provided in a base mix at arate of 1.5 pounds per day for prefresh dairy cattle (e.g., for 28 daysprior to calving) and at a rate of 1.25 pounds per day for post freshdairy cattle (e.g., for 30 days post-calving).

The effects of feeding sorbitol to heat stressed dairy cattle after 30days from calving is shown in Table 6A.

TABLE 6A day 0 to Control Sorbitol Diet* 30 post- No No Control SorbitolCooling partum Misters Misters Misters Misters SE P-Value Daily lbs/d67.2 74.4 81.1 78.7 2.17 0.03 Milk Yield Dry lbs/d 33.4 36.8 38.1 37.81.24 0.14 Matter Intake Body lbs 1222 1232 1303 1259 31.71 ns Weight,post DMI as % 2.78 3.03 3.01 3.05 0.09 ns % BW ECM lbs/d 74.9 75.2 82.280.2 2.32 ns FCM lbs/d 75.9 75.5 81.9 80.7 2.39 ns Milk Fat % 3.85 3.423.65 3.53 0.12 0.18 Milk % 2.88 2.81 2.89 2.81 0.05 ns Protein Milk-to-2.11 2.05 2.11 2.08 0.04 ns Feed Ratio

The results of Table 6A show the groups ingesting sorbitol performedbetter than the control group not receiving mister treatment. Forexample, the sorbitol treatment group without mister treatment increasedmilk yield by about 7.2 pounds per day and the sorbitol and mistertreatment group increased milk yield by about 11.5 pounds per day (orincreased by between about 11 percent and about 17 percent) compared tothe control group without mister treatment. Dry matter intake increasedby between about 3.4 to about 4.4 pounds per day (or increased bybetween about 10 percent and about 13 percent) compared to the controlgroup without mister treatment. P* diet cooling values indicate theresponse or magnitude of the response to cooling was also influenced bythe diet. The four treatments were influenced differently as to the maineffect of either cooling or diet, and for the P* diet cooling valueslisted, the interaction between the diet parameter and cooling wasmeasurable.

The effects of feeding sorbitol to heat stressed dairy cattle after 60days from calving is shown in Table 6B. From day 30 to day 60, all dairycattle study groups received the same diet free of sorbitol (see Table5).

TABLE 6B day Diet* 0 to 60 Control Sorbitol Cooling post- No No ControlSorbitol P- partum Misters Misters Misters Misters SE Value Daily lbs/d73.0 81.2 86.6 84.3 1.54 0.01 Milk Yield Dry lbs/d 39.1 41.1 43.4 42.90.87 0.16 Matter Intake Body lbs 1220 1231 1299 1261 28.16 ns Weight,post DMI as % % 3.25 3.32 3.48 3.45 0.06 ns BW ECM lbs/d 76.7 77.3 82.279.8 1.94 ns FCM lbs/d 77.7 77.7 82.4 80.4 2.07 ns Milk Fat % 3.48 3.123.32 3.17 0.08 0.15 Milk % 2.72 2.66 2.72 2.66 0.04 ns Protein Milk-to-1.94 1.97 1.98 2.00 0.03 ns Feed

In Table 6B, the groups ingesting sorbitol for 28 days pre-partum and 30days postpartum after 60 days performed better than the control groupnot receiving mister treatment. For example, the sorbitol treatmentgroup without mister treatment increased milk yield by about 8.2 poundsper day and the sorbitol and mister treatment group increased milk yieldby about 11.3 pounds per day (or increased by between about 11 percentand about 15.5 percent) compared to the control group without mistertreatment. Dry matter intake increased by between about 2 to about 3.8pounds per day (or increased by between about 5 percent and about 10percent) compared to the control group without mister treatment. Inaddition, milk-to-feed ratios increased to 1.97 and 2.0 for the sorbitoltreatment groups compared to the control group without mister treatmentat 1.94. For the two mister treatment groups, the sorbitol groupincreased its milk-to-feed ratio to 2.0 compared to the control group at1.98.

Providing sorbitol in the diets of the transition dairy cattle mayreduce beta hydroxyl butyrate (BHBA) levels, and therefore may helpprevent or reduce the incidence of ketosis or fatty liver syndrome inthe dairy cattle. FIG. 4 provides a graph illustrating BHBA levels inthe transition dairy cattle in the four groups studied and shows thecontrol group without mister treatment experienced a spike in BHBAlevels compared to the sorbitol groups.

Example 3

This example demonstrates the effects of feeding sorbitol to dairycattle in mid-lactation (e.g., about 100 to about 200 days in milk) at arate of about 100 grams per day. 64 dairy cattle were separated intofour pens of 16 dairy cattle each pen was provided one of the fourtreatments described above in connection with Example 1. The treatmentgroups receiving sorbitol in the diet were provided 1 pound of premixper day during a ten week testing period. During the study, thetemperature was between 70 degrees and 85 degrees during 82 percent ofstudy and was greater than 85 degrees during 25 percent of the study.Heat stress was observed in the dairy cattle in a manner similar toExample 1.

The control and sorbitol diets for the prefresh and postfresh cows werecomposed of substantially the feed components provided in Table 7A.

TABLE 7A Ingredients: pounds of DM Control Sorbitol Corn Silage 14.014.0 Alfalfa Hay 11.5 11.5 Grass Hay 1.5 1.5 Base Grain Mix 16.0 16.0High Org 8.0 8.0 Control Mix 1.0 Sorbitol Treatment Mix 1.0 Total 52.052.0

The nutrient analysis of the total mixed rations for the control andsorbitol diets provided during the study are shown in Table 7B:

TABLE 7B Control Sorbitol CP, % 17.3 17.3 ADF, % 20.7 20.5 NDF, % 32.031.7 Fat, % 4.9 4.9 Starch, % 23.5 24.7 Forage NDF, % 24.3 24.7 MP, %12.0 12.0 ME, Mcal/lb 1.3 1.3

Table 8 illustrates the effects of feeding sorbitol in the diet of dairycattle in mid-lactation.

TABLE 8 Control Sorbitol Diet * No No Control Sorbitol Cooling, MistersMisters Misters Misters SE P-value Dry Matter 48.8 51.2 52.0 49.4 0.60.0001 Intake, lbs/d Daily Milk 70.2 71.9 73.6 73.7 1.1 ns Yield, lbs/dBody 1353 1393 1367 1373 6.8 0.01  Weight, lbs ECM, lbs/d 65.5 67.3 69.068.1 1.9 ns 3.5% FCM, 64.2 66.0 67.9 66.7 2.1 ns lbs/d Milk Fat, % 3.003.03 2.97 2.92 0.07 ns Milk Protein, 2.91 2.92 2.87 2.92 0.03 ns %

The results of Table 8 illustrate that the groups ingesting sorbitolduring mid-lactation performed better than the control group notreceiving mister treatment. For example, the sorbitol treatment groupwithout mister treatment increased milk yield by about 1.7 pounds perday and the sorbitol and mister treatment group increased milk yield byabout 3.5 pounds per day (or increased by between about 2.5 percent andabout 5 percent). Dry matter intake increased by between about 0.6 toabout 2.4 pounds per day (or increased by between about 1.2 percent andabout 5 percent) compared to the control group without mister treatment.

Although the present disclosure provides references to preferredembodiments, persons skilled in the art will recognize that changes maybe made in form and detail without departing from the spirit and scopeof the invention.

1-20. (canceled)
 21. A method of feeding a lactating ruminant, themethod comprising: during a period of ambient temperature conditions ofat least 70° F., determining the lactating ruminant is experiencing heatstress by observing one of an about 10 percent decrease in dry matterintake, reduced milk production, increased respirations, elevatedinternal body temperature, open mouth breathing, increased panting,sweating or failed reproduction; and feeding the heat stressed lactatingruminant a diet comprising an amount of sugar alcohol effective toimprove milk production, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises at leastone of sorbitol, xylitol, adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabitol,dulcitol, erythritol, galactitol, glucitol, iditol, inositol, isomalt,lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol or threitol.22. The method of claim 21, wherein the improved milk productioncomprises improved production of energy corrected milk.
 23. The methodof claim 21, wherein the improved milk production comprises improved fatcorrected milk.
 24. The method of claim 21, wherein in the sugar alcoholis further effective to reduce beta hydroxyl butyrate levels in thelactating ruminant.
 25. The method of claim 21, wherein in the sugaralcohol is further effective to improve a milk-to-feed ratio.
 26. Themethod of claim 21, wherein the sugar alcohol is sorbitol.
 27. Themethod of claim 21, wherein at least a portion of the sugar alcohol fedto the lactating ruminant is within a formula feed.
 28. The method ofclaim 21, wherein at least a portion of the sugar alcohol fed to thelactating ruminant is incorporated with one or more of corn silage,legume silages, alfalfa hay, mixed hays, grains, grain mixtures, grainmeals or nutritional supplements.
 29. The method of claim 21, whereinthe sugar alcohol fed to the lactating ruminant is incorporated with oneor more of corn silage, legume silages, alfalfa hay, mixed hays, grains,grain mixtures, grain meals or nutritional supplements.
 30. A method offeeding a transition ruminant during a transition phase, the methodcomprising: during a period where ambient temperature conditions are atleast 70° F., determining the transition ruminant is experiencing heatstress while the transition ruminant is pregnant by observing two ormore of an about 10 percent decrease in dry matter intake, increasedrespirations, open mouth breathing, increased panting or sweating; andduring pregnancy, feeding the heat stressed transition ruminant a dietcomprising an amount of sugar alcohol effective to improve milkproduction after calving, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises at leastone of sorbitol, xylitol, adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabitol,dulcitol, erythritol, galactitol, glucitol, iditol, inositol, isomalt,lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol or threitol;and wherein the transition phase of the transition ruminant is definedby a period during which the ruminant is pregnant and extending throughcalving by the ruminant.
 31. A method of feeding a lactating ruminant,the method comprising: feeding the lactating ruminant a diet comprisingsugar alcohol in view of a potential for the ruminant to experience heatstress; and determining the lactating ruminant is experiencing heatstress by observing one or more of elevated internal body temperature,open mouth breathing, increased panting, sweating or failedreproduction, wherein in the sugar alcohol ingested in the diet iseffective to improve milk production of the heat stressed lactatingruminant, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises at least one of sorbitol,xylitol, adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabitol, dulcitol, erythritol,galactitol, glucitol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol,mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol or threitol.
 32. The method ofclaim 31, wherein the potential for heat stress is based on one or moreof historical weather patterns, short-term weather forecasts or observedtemperature conditions of at least 70° F.
 33. The method of claim 31,wherein the improved milk production comprises improved production ofenergy corrected milk.
 34. The method of claim 31, wherein the improvedmilk production comprises improved fat corrected milk.
 35. The method ofclaim 31, wherein in the sugar alcohol ingested in the diet of the heatstressed lactating ruminant is further effective to reduce beta hydroxylbutyrate levels in the lactating ruminant.
 36. The method of claim 31,wherein in the sugar alcohol ingested in the diet of the heat stressedlactating ruminant is further effective to improve a milk-to-feed ratio.37. The method of claim 31, wherein the sugar alcohol is sorbitol. 38.The method of claim 31, wherein the sugar alcohol fed to the lactatingruminant is within a formula feed.
 39. The method of claim 31, whereinthe sugar alcohol fed to the lactating ruminant is incorporated with oneor more of corn silage, legume silages, alfalfa hay, mixed hays, grains,grain mixtures, grain meals or nutritional supplements.
 40. The methodof claim 31, wherein the lactating ruminant is in a transition phase oflactation.